How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should've Left There?

[JakeStarkey]

You were not alive during the time of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. Or Obama.

Sure, I was.
Rank and file Democrats were much more likely to oppose Johnson's war than were Republicans, not so much with Obama.

You use one example and a distorted one at that. The Dems supported Kennedy and LBJ for some time. Let's talk accurately, please.

 

[francoHFW]

ISIS won't win, and muslims will beat them. Great lesson for them, AND chicken hawk Pubs and their dupes...

ISIS won't win, and it will be Muslims that beat them?

Hope you're right.

Doubt you are.

Time will tell.

Isis has 30,000 troops and they get their military expertise from the Iraqi army that the GOP disbanded.

The largest four countries in the Middle East have 1.5 million troops.

If the US hadn't been showing up every time to "save the day", the conflict would already be over. But they keep waiting for us. Apparently, they don't want their kids dead when Republicans are so willing to sacrifice ours.

Oh, knock off the 'Republicans are so willing to sacrifice ours' horseshit.

Your average run-of-the-mill Republican is no more (nor no less) eager than your average Democrat, to send our young people off to war.

We're talking about your LEADERS, the chicken hawk swine. The average GOPer is a brainwashed ignoramus.

 

[francoHFW]

You were not alive during the time of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. Or Obama.

Sure, I was.
Rank and file Democrats were much more likely to oppose Johnson's war than were Republicans, not so much with Obama.

You use one example and a distorted one at that. The Dems supported Kennedy and LBJ for some time. Let's talk accurately, please.

LBJ saw he couldn't win, and gave up. NIXON went with BS "secret strategy to win the war", and the new idiot Southern Strategy GOPers went along.

 

[Kondor3]

Your average run-of-the-mill Republican is no more (nor no less) eager than your average Democrat, to send our young people off to war

Since when?

Republicans EXIST to serve war and war mongers...

Coming from someone (you) who routinely condemns his own country, I routinely ignore your opinion on such matters.

...Democrats are AMATEURS, by comparison.

Woodrow Wilson ----> WWI

Franklin Delano Roosevelt ----> WWII

Harry Truman ----> Korea

Lyndon B. Johnson ----> Vietnam

--------

Yeah, sure they are, Georgie... you tell 'em !!!

 

[Kondor3]

...We're talking about your LEADERS, the chicken hawk swine. The average GOPer is a brainwashed ignoramus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You were not alive during the time of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. Or Obama.

Sure, I was.
Rank and file Democrats were much more likely to oppose Johnson's war than were Republicans, not so much with Obama.

You use one example and a distorted one at that. The Dems supported Kennedy and LBJ for some time. Let's talk accurately, please.

LBJ saw he couldn't win, and gave up. NIXON went with BS "secret strategy to win the war", and the new idiot Southern Strategy GOPers went along.

Deflection won't help. The Dems were as Cold Warrior back then as were the Pubs. And the Southern Strategy has nothing to do with the OP. Stay focused.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your average run-of-the-mill Republican is no more (nor no less) eager than your average Democrat, to send our young people off to war

Since when?

Republicans EXIST to serve war and war mongers...

Coming from someone (you) who routinely condemns his own country, I routinely ignore your opinion on such matters.

...Democrats are AMATEURS, by comparison.

Woodrow Wilson ----> WWI

Franklin Delano Roosevelt ----> WWII

Harry Truman ----> Korea

Lyndon B. Johnson ----> Vietnam

Lincoln: Civil War.
McKinley: Philippines and Cuba.
Reagan: Grenada
Bush the Elder: Iraq I
Bush the Younger: Iraq II and Afghanistan.

Kondor3, be balanced, yep?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The right winger who started this thread decided to bet against the good Iraqis being able to defend Iraq from Daesh terrorist scum unless US troops must be fighting on the ground with them. Why do Republicans bet on Iraq's enemies against the Iraqis where so many Americans were killed and wounded serving in Bush's dumb war to find WMD that was not there?

I'm sure glad that Iraq knucklehead lost her stupid anti-American bet.

 

[francoHFW]

You were not alive during the time of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. Or Obama.

Sure, I was.
Rank and file Democrats were much more likely to oppose Johnson's war than were Republicans, not so much with Obama.

You use one example and a distorted one at that. The Dems supported Kennedy and LBJ for some time. Let's talk accurately, please.

LBJ saw he couldn't win, and gave up. NIXON went with BS "secret strategy to win the war", and the new idiot Southern Strategy GOPers went along.

Deflection won't help. The Dems were as Cold Warrior back then as were the Pubs. And the Southern Strategy has nothing to do with the OP. Stay focused.

Oh, baloney. Ike was an independant, McCarthy and the Dulles boys were the chicken hawk heart of the GOP.

After gung ho Spanish-American War Pubs, you had the disastrous isolationism 1920-41, then the Military industrialists when the GOP discovered how much money they could make THAT way. Adlai Stevenson etc were no way the cold warriors the GOPers were.

The Southern strategy gave us the beginnings of the dumbass/hater GOP of today...RIP fellow alumnus Bill Scranton..

 

[francoHFW]

Your average run-of-the-mill Republican is no more (nor no less) eager than your average Democrat, to send our young people off to war

Since when?

Republicans EXIST to serve war and war mongers...

Coming from someone (you) who routinely condemns his own country, I routinely ignore your opinion on such matters.

...Democrats are AMATEURS, by comparison.

Woodrow Wilson ----> WWI

Franklin Delano Roosevelt ----> WWII

Harry Truman ----> Korea

Lyndon B. Johnson ----> Vietnam

Lincoln: Civil War.
McKinley: Philippines and Cuba.
Reagan: Grenada
Bush the Elder: Iraq I
Bush the Younger: Iraq II and Afghanistan.

Kondor3, be balanced, yep?

Reagan was a confrontational, chicken hawk moron everywhere. El Salvador, Nicaraugua, Lebanon, Libya etc etc- the young Turks (!) I met in Paris HATED him for propping up a Turk a-hole, got the Iran-Iraq War going, started this whole ME mess going in fact. AND we're lucky he didn't get Gorby squashed with all his stupid bluster...Basically, the world thought Ronnie and W, the Dulleses, and the entire Pub presidential lineup today were and are cowboy wannabe morons...

 

[georgephillip]

You use one example and a distorted one at that. The Dems supported Kennedy and LBJ for some time. Let's talk accurately, please.

Dems turned on the war long before Republicans did, or have you forgotten Chicago in '68?
1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Woodrow Wilson ----> WWI

Franklin Delano Roosevelt ----> WWII

Harry Truman ----> Korea

Lyndon B. Johnson ----> Vietnam

Rich Democrats have as much reason to support war as rich Republicans; Among the rank and file of each party, Democrats are far more likely to oppose wars of choice than Republicans are.

 

[rdean]

Your average run-of-the-mill Republican is no more (nor no less) eager than your average Democrat, to send our young people off to war

Since when?

Republicans EXIST to serve war and war mongers.
Democrats are AMATEURS, by comparison.

You were not alive during the time of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. Or Obama.

After what Republicans did in the Middle East and Iraq in particular, you have the nerve to say it's Obama who is a war monger? The guy the GOP calls "soft" and "weak"?

You have just proven to us that you are a major turd.

 

[JakeStarkey]

After what Republicans did in the Middle East and Iraq in particular, you have the nerve to say it's Obama who is a war monger? The guy the GOP calls "soft" and "weak"? You have just proven to us that you are a major turd.

Says one of the softest turds on the Board. I called out the GOP above as well. Both parties conduct neo-imperialism, turd, and if HRC is elected, she will as well. The only ones who won't would be Sanders, Warren, and maybe Paul. You need to grow up.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

JS 11234283

Both parties conduct neo-imperialism, turd, and if HRC is elected, she will as well. The only ones who won't would be Sanders, Warren, and maybe Paul.

The frontrunners right now and its early are Bush and Clinton. And it really benefits HRC if Bush is her opponent,

Jeb will be forced to defend his idiot brother while Clinton will get a chance to dig up and drill in her eloquent speech in 2002 on why she voted to authorize military action in Iraq if Saddam Hussein continued to be in non-compliance with his WMD disarmament agreement with the UN in 1991.

HRCs vote was the correct eone because prior to September Bush was invading Iraq by (a) provoking an incident that would justify a major US invasion or (b) invading Iraq based upon the war powers granted to the president to fight the war on terror and on any state that supported terrorism.

Bush only went to the UN because he needed Blair and the UK for legitimacy. Blair was pressed by his Parliament and legal advisers that there had to be an attempt first to disarm Iraq peacefully through enhanced inspections and no more games from Iraq's regime as they had done in 1998 when inspectors could not do their work and left.

Bush agreed to go the inspections route. And he presented the argument in September 2002 that war could in fact be avoided best if he was given the authority to use force because that would force both Iraq and the UN to act to disarm Iraq peacefully.

So in October 2002 US Senators were weighing the risk of taking Bush at his word that he preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully against the possibility that not giving the US Commander in Chief the ability to take military action with a vote in Congress would leave Saddam Hussein to gamble that he did not let the inspectors in.

As it turned out Bush's word was not worth a damn because the inspectors of course went in and SH cooperated like he never did before.

Bush stuck with plan a by lying that he had intelligence in March 2003 that Iraq was hiding WMD from those 2003 inspectors.

If Dems were smart they would demand the recirds released on that March 2003 supposed intelligence that Bush said left no doubt that WMD was being hidden by Iraq.

If such intel existed Tenet should have been fired in disgrace. Instead Bush gave him the Medal of Freedom fdrspite alledgedly blowing intelligence gathering that resulted in invading Iraq for no legitimate national security reason.

A Bush v Clinton campaign should bring this out. The left wing anti war purists would have to quit trying to punish Clinton for a tough decision she had to make being Senator if a state that was attacked by terrorists just one year before that vote was forced upon the Senate for political reasons and to provide cover for Blair because it was about getting inspections resumed as well.

 

[Kondor3]

Your average run-of-the-mill Republican is no more (nor no less) eager than your average Democrat, to send our young people off to war

Since when?

Republicans EXIST to serve war and war mongers...

Coming from someone (you) who routinely condemns his own country, I routinely ignore your opinion on such matters.

...Democrats are AMATEURS, by comparison.

Woodrow Wilson ----> WWI

Franklin Delano Roosevelt ----> WWII

Harry Truman ----> Korea

Lyndon B. Johnson ----> Vietnam

Lincoln: Civil War.
McKinley: Philippines and Cuba.
Reagan: Grenada
Bush the Elder: Iraq I
Bush the Younger: Iraq II and Afghanistan.

Kondor3, be balanced, yep?

All the examples you served-up except for the Civil War were small potatoes compared to WWI, WWII,Korea and Vietnam, with respect to American casualties.

And, with respect to the Civil War, given that it was the (Southern) Democrats who fired the first shot, well...

But 'balanced' wasn't the object of that particular exercise...

The object was to counterpoint George Achmed Phillippe's assertion that Democrats make Republicans look like amateurs, in a war-making context...

A goal in which I succeeded admirably, in citing WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, in connection with the Democrats, yes?

 

[Kondor3]

Woodrow Wilson ----> WWI

Franklin Delano Roosevelt ----> WWII

Harry Truman ----> Korea

Lyndon B. Johnson ----> Vietnam

Rich Democrats have as much reason to support war as rich Republicans; Among the rank and file of each party, Democrats are far more likely to oppose wars of choice than Republicans are.

Calm yourself, child-in-an-old-man's-body...

I counterpointed your idiotic remarks about Pubs and warfare quite effectively...

Always happy to bitch-slap an America-basher like you...

Stop-by for another smack-down, whenever you like...

Always happy to help...

Next contestant, please...

 

[georgephillip]

The object was to counterpoint George Achmed Phillippe's assertion that Democrats make Republicans look like amateurs, in a war-making context...

A goal in which I succeeded admirably, in citing WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, in connection with the Democrats, yes?

Only in the minds of amateurish right-wing trolls lost in delusions of relevance. If you can pull your head out of your punk ass long enough, tell me when rank and file Republicans ever took to the streets to protest the rich-bitch's war the way Democrats did in Chicago?

"The 1968 Democratic National Convention had a significant amount of protest activity. In 1967,counterculture protest groups had been promising to come to Chicago and disrupt the convention, and the city promised to maintain law and order. For eight days, protesters and the Chicago Police Department fought in the streets of Chicago while the US Democratic Party met at the convention in the International Amphitheater."

1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Calm yourself, child-in-an-old-man's-body...

I counterpointed your idiotic remarks about Pubs and warfare quite effectively...

Always happy to bitch-slap an America-basher like you...

Stop-by for another smack-down, whenever you like...

Always happy to help...

Next contestant, please...

I'm leaning toward very stupid..

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Kondor3, you don't get to deflect.

You were hoisted on your petard.

GOP presidents have indeed started wars. The greatest one, the Civil War, killed more Americans than all the other wars and was guided by Lincoln.

All our recent wars were started by the GOP. And note the Republicans and Democrats were happily joined in together.

Conclusion: the OP is off balance. Second Conclusion: Kondor3 is off balance as well.